battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Creating two types of stub classification
Well, it would help stop some editors from getting confused and help make pages better so I support ze idea. Light Em Up (talk) 03:47, June 2, 2013 (UTC) I like it, due to the fact that there are many articles that are short in length, but only because there is no more information to provide/revise. '' PLR Soldier '' 03:49, June 2, 2013 (UTC) IMO We should have 3 types of stubs, the two above are find, but IMO we need one for upcoming content like Battlefield 4.-- SlopijoeGott erhalte Franz den Kaiser 04:00, June 2, 2013 (UTC) :That's a good point. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 04:02, June 2, 2013 (UTC) ^ I agree with Slopijoe's idea, perhaps we could even use a similar idea to a few other wiki's, in which a template notifies the user that it is upcoming content and as a result, bound to change at any time. For example Template: Upcoming added below Template: Incomplete or Template: Short. Not a bad idea, I've been fighting the urge to remove the Stub template, I mean what's there to add on Chain-link fencing? Some history about it? Don't really think so. I also agree with Joe's idea. Agreed with both Yuri's and Slopi's ideas. Rangers Lead 18:14, June 2, 2013 (UTC) I like this idea because then if an article is "short" it's just short and you might be able to extend it a bit, but if it is "incomplete" someone may be working on it or that means there is more information but no one has added it yet. 02:34, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Do a Massive Stub-Rollback I propose that nothing changes. However, I believe that people need a teaching on what a "stub" is. I see that most of you above are commenting about how nothing can be added to a "short" article; well, if there isn't anything to add, what's the point of placing a label on it? A "stub" should be something incomplete, nothing more. If it's complete, then go ahead and make that standard; I feel there's no real need to make a "short" star myself. :We can't expect to teach every user on the wiki about our class system -- especially those who have yet to join. If a random guy off the street is aware of our system, but we don't know him, it would be easy for him to accidentally do some damage if we aren't paying attention. :Stubs, also, are short by definition -- it's even in the class template itself ("this article is short and in need of expansion"). It also isn't just about stubs, but also poor-quality standard articles. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:29, June 2, 2013 (UTC) Vote Yuri's proposition Basically, all in favor of a formal division of the "stub" category (replaced by "short", upcoming and "incomplete") just put Support - sig Support-- 05:32, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Support - '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 07:13, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Support-- Support-- Rangers Lead 01:55, June 7, 2013 (UTC) Support-- Light Em Up (talk) 05:31, June 12, 2013 (UTC) Support-- 02:31, June 17, 2013 (UTC) PSK's objection All in favor of PSK's suggestion, just put Support - sig Like he said, more people should know what a stub is. Pages on deleted maps for example are short and only a sentence or two long. Their still standard because their no info to add. When its a stub, it means it needs to be expanded. Making an incomplete class along with stub isnt exactly necessary. Support - -- awyman13 {Talk}' { }' 08:18, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Support - Nayhem (talk) 02:18, June 17, 2013 (UTC) :"Stub" and "Construction" are quite standard on Wikia, even if some are confused as to their function. If you wish to add "Short" and "Incomplete", or even pipe one to the other, that would be a better idea than removing stub/construction. ::It's not "removing" either. "Short" is what most people consider "Stub" anyway. ::Also, the vote's already over. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 02:26, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Status quo All in favor of absolutely no changes, put the same thing as above here. Adding quotes to status templates While we're here should we add quotes to status templates? Kinda like that of CoD: Wikia E.g. }}| }|article}} is currently under construction. It may contain little or inaccurate information. |}Category:Construction Yes the examples are very dodgy. It looks/sounds cool. [Komandir-[DICEpwned]] Recon| | 02:51, June 17, 2013 (UTC) :I remember that the templates used to be that way, actually. Personally, I'd prefer it if we left those out because it's kinda unprofessional. I'll see if I can find some reference to that on the old forums. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 02:53, June 17, 2013 (UTC) ::Well, it's not the forum, but you can see that sort of thing here. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 02:55, June 17, 2013 (UTC) I think those samples look a little bit weird. It works on the CoD Wiki because they have pictures by their statuses and their statuses are usually quotes from the CoD games but changed so it is relevant with the status. So I say no. 02:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC) }}